McIntyre v. Kelly
| Decision Date | 03 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18-2617-DDC-GEB |
| Parties | KATHARYN MCINTYRE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LAURA KELLY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
This matter comes before the court on defendant Governor Laura Kelly's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 79). Plaintiffs sued defendant in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Kansas. She moves for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), claiming that the court lacks jurisdiction over the claims asserted against her. Plaintiffs have responded (Doc. 96) and Governor Kelly has replied (Doc. 102). For reasons explained below, the court grants Governor Kelly's Motion to Dismiss.
The court takes the following facts from plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Doc. 63) and it views them, as it must, in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. S.E.C. v. Shields, 744 F.3d 633, 640 (10th Cir. 2014) ().
Four representatives bring this proposed class action seeking injunctive relief on behalf of twelve named minor plaintiffs and other children currently in the Kansas foster care system. Plaintiffs seek "injunctive relief compelling [d]efendants to remedy known dangerous practices and specific structural deficiencies in the Kansas foster care system" and "end violations of their federal rights . . . ." Doc. 63 at 4 .
Plaintiffs assert official capacity claims against four officials for the state of Kansas: (1) Laura Kelly in her capacity as Governor of the State of Kansas; (2) Laura Howard, in her capacity as Secretary of the Kansas Department for Children and Families ("DCF"); (3) Laura Howard, in her capacity as Secretary of the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services ("KDADS"); and (4) Dr. Lee Norman, in his capacity as Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment ("KDHE"). The Amended Complaint asserts four causes of action against these officials, including: (a) a substantive due process claim against Governor Kelly and DCF Secretary Howard, alleging they failed to meet their duty to protect plaintiffs; and (b) three distinct claims under specified provisions of the Medicaid Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a), 1396d(a), and 1396d(r)), alleging all four defendants failed to provide appropriate physical and mental health screenings and services.
Paragraph 105 of the Amended Complaint sets out Governor Kelly's alleged role in the putative violations:
Laura Kelly, Governor of Kansas, is sued in her official capacity. Under Article I, Section 3 of the Kansas Constitution, the governor holds supreme executive power and is responsible for the enforcement of the laws of the state. She is therefore responsible for ensuring all Kansas executive agencies comply with all applicable laws. Governor Kelly has the authority to issue executive reorganization orders "transferring, abolishing, consolidating or coordinating the whole or any part of any [executive] state agency, or the function thereof" and to significantly reshape the functions and coordination of defendant agencies DCF, KDHE, and KDADS. Governor Kelly is also responsible for appointing, and has the power to remove, the Secretaries of DCF, KDHE, and KDADS. The governor has used her executive authority to manage the work of defendant agencies DCF, KDHE, and KDADS, including child welfare and Medicaid. Governor Kelly's office is located in this District.
Only Governor Kelly has moved for dismissal. Docs. 79 & 80. Her motion argues that she is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, an immunity that if applicable, purportedly deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Id.
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, as such, must have a statutory basis to exercise jurisdiction." Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 955 (10th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States or where there is diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1332. "A court lacking jurisdiction cannot render judgment but must dismiss the cause at any stage of the proceedings in which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir. 1974) (citation omitted). Since federal courts are ones with limited jurisdiction, there is a presumption against jurisdiction and the party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden to prove it exists. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
Generally, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) takes one of two forms: a facial attack or a factual attack. Holt v. United States, 46 F.3d 1000, 1002-03 (10th Cir. 1995). Id. at 1002 (citing Ohio Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 922 F.2d 320, 325 (6th Cir. 1990)). "Second, a party may go beyond allegations contained in the complaint and challenge the facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction depends." Id. at 1003 (citations omitted). "When reviewing a factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction, a district court may not presume thetruthfulness of the complaint's factual allegations." Id. (citations omitted). Instead, "[a] court has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, and [to conduct] a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts under Rule 12(b)(1)." Id. (citations omitted); see also Los Alamos Study Grp. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 692 F.3d 1057, 1063-64 (10th Cir. 2012); Sizova v. Nat'l Inst. of Standards & Tech., 282 F.3d 1320, 1324-25 (10th Cir. 2002) ().
Governor Kelly bases her motion here on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. Doc. 80 at 1-9. As explained in more detail below, Governor Kelly contends sovereign immunity shields her from liability on the Amended Complaint's claims because it has not alleged any facts showing an exception to the state's sovereign immunity applies. So, Governor Kelly argues, the court must dismiss the claims against her for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 9. Plaintiffs respond, contending their claims against Governor Kelly fall within the exception recognized in Ex parte Young because she has "the authority and duty to oversee the foster care system," and has "demonstrated [her] willingness to exercise that authority." Doc. 96 at 7. Plaintiffs characterize Governor Kelly's motion as a factual attack on the court's subject matter jurisdiction and attach 19 exhibits with their Response. Id. at 13-16; Docs. 97-97-19. Governor Kelly disagrees. She contends her motion asserts a facial attack. Doc. 102 at 3-5.
Because the court's decision whether to consider plaintiffs' additional materials turns on whether Governor Kelly's challenge is a facial or factual attack, the court turns to that question first. In part A, below, the court concludes that Governor Kelly's challenge presents a facial challenge. That outcome precludes the court from considering plaintiffs' supplementarymaterials. In part B, the court turns to Governor Kelly's arguments based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
Governor Kelly's motion did not specify whether her motion presented a facial or factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs took on the issue, however, and they characterize Governor Kelly's arguments as "factual assertions" that "plainly go beyond the factual assertions in the Amended Complaint . . . ." Doc. 96 at 15. Although plaintiffs concede Governor Kelly's motion "presents no factual evidentiary materials," plaintiffs nevertheless assert that Governor Kelly challenges plaintiffs' allegations that she (1) manages or runs certain programs, (2) threatened or expressed intention to enforce certain laws, (3) enforces Kansas laws that control foster care programs, and (4) expressed an intention to enforce the Kansas foster care laws. Id. at 14-15. Plaintiffs thus contend that Governor Kelly's motion challenges the veracity of the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint and thus, the court may consider the additional evidence plaintiffs submitted with their Response. Id. at 13.
Governor Kelly's Reply weighs in on this issue. She disagrees. The Governor contends that her motion merely questions the sufficiency of the Amended Complaint's jurisdictional allegations. Governor Kelly argues her motion "is premised on [p]laintiffs' failure to articulate . . . any particular statutory or other legal duty that the Kansas Governor holds in enforcing the statutes that govern the management of the Kansas foster care system." Doc. 102 at 3 ). Governor Kelly asserts her arguments "simply summarize the statutory authority that places the administration and control of the Kansas foster care system in the hands of the Agency Secretaries," i.e., she controverts plaintiffs' legal conclusions about her enforcement power but does not challenge the factsplaintiffs have alleged. Id. at 5 (citing Doc. 80 at 8-9). At bottom, Governor Kelly argues, she has not asserted extraneous facts or challenged any of plaintiffs' alleged facts and thus, her motion presents a facial attack on the sufficiency of the Amended Complaint's jurisdictional allegations.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial